Deer Management Stakeholder Organization.

[5Cent]

Thanks for posting Mike, a few simple questions:

1. Why is the landowner considered the stakeholder instead of hunters? I would like to know why landowners, not hunters are the group, or organization, who may affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision, activity, or outcome of the project.
2. Are there only going to be 4 meetings now instead of 5 (original article stated 5).
3. Why does the group feel spending 25% of time (1 of 4 meetings) to plan/conceptulize and 75% to implement is the best approach? History clearly shows that failing to plan is planning to fail. This can easily be interpreted/perceived as "stuffing down the throat" instead of "due diligence" for the best possible outcome for everyone involved (sponsors, steakholders, product user group - simplified PMI terms for the scope of this project)

Hope you get well soon Brent.

 

[giles]

[emoji849][emoji850]

 

[bowhunter1023]

Thanks for posting Mike, a few simple questions:

1. Why is the landowner considered the stakeholder instead of hunters? I would like to know why landowners, not hunters are the group, or organization, who may affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision, activity, or outcome of the project.
2. Are there only going to be 4 meetings now instead of 5 (original article stated 5).
3. Why does the group feel spending 25% of time (1 of 4 meetings) to plan/conceptulize and 75% to implement is the best approach? History clearly shows that failing to plan is planning to fail. This can easily be interpreted/perceived as "stuffing down the throat" instead of "due diligence" for the best possible outcome for everyone involved (sponsors, steakholders, product user group - simplified PMI terms for the scope of this project)

Hope you get well soon Brent.

Fantastic point.

 

[MK111]

Thanks for posting Mike, a few simple questions:

1. Why is the landowner considered the stakeholder instead of hunters? I would like to know why landowners, not hunters are the group, or organization, who may affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision, activity, or outcome of the project.
2. Are there only going to be 4 meetings now instead of 5 (original article stated 5).
3. Why does the group feel spending 25% of time (1 of 4 meetings) to plan/conceptulize and 75% to implement is the best approach? History clearly shows that failing to plan is planning to fail. This can easily be interpreted/perceived as "stuffing down the throat" instead of "due diligence" for the best possible outcome for everyone involved (sponsors, steakholders, product user group - simplified PMI terms for the scope of this project)

Hope you get well soon Brent.

#1 Landowner as a stakeholder over the hunter.
Without landowners permitting hunting conditions then the only hunting left in Ohio is the very limited public lands. And in many large areas of Ohio there is no or damn little public lands to hunt. These areas would be soon over run with hunters and soon both the animals and hunters will suffer.
Take away too many private landowners rights and there is much less hunting going on.
As a landowner I feel the landowner should and must be given 1st considerations. But the idea can not be carried too far.

Anyway that's how I see it. Unless the committee means it another way. If so explain it to me.

 

[Jackalope]

#1 Landowner as a stakeholder over the hunter.
Without landowners permitting hunting conditions then the only hunting left in Ohio is the very limited public lands. And in many large areas of Ohio there is no or damn little public lands to hunt. These areas would be soon over run with hunters and soon both the animals and hunters will suffer.
Take away too many private landowners rights and there is much less hunting going on.
As a landowner I feel the landowner should and must be given 1st considerations. But the idea can not be carried too far.

Anyway that's how I see it. Unless the committee means it another way. If so explain it to me.

Easy way to fix that impact. It's been established that deer do not belong to landowners but rather are shared resource belonging to everyone alike. Hunters included. As such if a landowner doesn't allow hunting he has made the conscious decision to accept that he will harbor a thriving deer population.

Remove the ability to apply for kill permits. You either

A. Don't allow hunting and accept the deer and the impacts of your decision.
B. Allow hunters of your choosing to assist with keeping them in check.

The ability for a person to wantonly waste the natural resources of this state that has been establish to not belong to them needs to go away. When it comes to shared resource such as deer nobody should have priority over the other, especially if that person purposefully doesn't allow the best method of management, hunting.

 

[Bigslam51]

Easy way to fix that impact. It's been established that deer do not belong to landowners but rather are shared resource belonging to everyone alike. Hunters included. As such if a landowner doesn't allow hunting he has made the conscious decision to accept that he will harbor a thriving deer population.

Remove the ability to apply for kill permits. You either

A. Don't allow hunting and accept the deer and the impacts of your decision.
B. Allow hunters of your choosing to assist with keeping them in check.

The ability for a person to wantonly waste the natural resources of this state that has been establish to not belong to them needs to go away. When it comes to shared resource such as deer nobody should have priority over the other, especially if that person purposefully doesn't allow the best method of management, hunting.

X2. Hard to find places to hunt anymore, and turkey is quickly becoming as hard as deer to gain permission.

 

[Buckmaster]

Thanks for chiming in and the updates Mike.

 

[mrex.0]

I'm curious as to your thoughts on where the perceived balance is tipping at this point in time between hunters, farmers and landowners.

Most definitely in favor of the farmers at this point in time.

 

[Bigslam51]

Most definitely in favor of the farmers at this point in time.

Wow, we all know what most of them want. How about an open season on coon?

 

[mrex.0]

Thanks for posting Mike, a few simple questions:

1. Why is the landowner considered the stakeholder instead of hunters? I would like to know why landowners, not hunters are the group, or organization, who may affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision, activity, or outcome of the project.

In many instances, they're one in the same. The idea of the group is to factor all 3 equally in the framework.

2. Are there only going to be 4 meetings now instead of 5 (original article stated 5).

Yes...8 days total.

3. Why does the group feel spending 25% of time (1 of 4 meetings) to plan/conceptulize and 75% to implement is the best approach? History clearly shows that failing to plan is planning to fail. This can easily be interpreted/perceived as "stuffing down the throat" instead of "due diligence" for the best possible outcome for everyone involved (sponsors, steakholders, product user group - simplified PMI terms for the scope of this project)

Hope you get well soon Brent.

Because 2 days is plenty of time to set the course but 6 days is pushing it from a "how" or implementation standpoint. You have to consider that there are a lot of conflicting perspectives at the table. The facilitator breaks us into smaller groups periodically throughout the day. Each subgroup contains members from all sides of the discussion. One speaker is appointed from each subgroup to addresses the entire room.

 

[mrex.0]

Remove the ability to apply for kill permits. You either

A. Don't allow hunting and accept the deer and the impacts of your decision.
B. Allow hunters of your choosing to assist with keeping them in check.

The ability for a person to wantonly waste the natural resources of this state that has been establish to not belong to them needs to go away. When it comes to shared resource such as deer nobody should have priority over the other, especially if that person purposefully doesn't allow the best method of management, hunting.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Jackalope]

I couldn't agree more.

Mike! You're not supposed to say that in public. We have a reputation to uphold. Lol.



I just checked by the way. No pigs.

 

[Mike]

Good discussion

 

[5Cent]

Appreciate the timely response Mike. I didn't realize the meetings were 2 full days each, great to hear.

I am sure you will agree, just important as planning and implementation is the ability to measure success. Will there be any quantitative goals attached for post implementation measurement? If yes, will they be published or openly shared with the public?

 

[Curran]

I was just thinking about this the other day. Thanks for sharing some input Mike.

 

[huntn2]

I'd still like to see a live stream broadcast added. Is this a potential option Mike?

 

[CritterGitterToo]

I have a question. What will the governors proposed restructure of the ODNR to eliminate individual divisions such as DOW mean for this stakeholder group? Seems like that's a pretty big deal.

 

[bawana]

Thanks for chipping in Mike, and what he's said is about it so far. As for me a little pinched nerve never did anybody and good, I've finally jumped through all the hoops and was at the Cleveland Clinic Thursday, and am on the way to being back to normal!

 

[Jackalope]

Thanks for chipping in Mike, and what he's said is about it so far. As for me a little pinched nerve never did anybody and good, I've finally jumped through all the hoops and was at the Cleveland Clinic Thursday, and am on the way to being back to normal!

That sucks. Is it in your neck or back?

 

[bawana]

Neck, c5 and c6 affecting my right shoulder all the way down to my fingers!